It’s my first time winning a prize.

[diamondcutter]

Context: Tom has just got a prize.

I know he could say “It’s the first time I’ve won a prize”. I’d like to know if he could also say this: It’s my first time winning a prize.

 

[Tarheel]

Context: Tom has just won a prize.

I know he could say “It’s the first time I’ve won a prize”. I’d like to know if he could also say this: It’s my first time winning a prize.

Yes. He could also say:

This is my first time ever winning a prize. Whoopee!

 

[Rover_KE]

I know he could say “It’s the first time I’ve won a prize”. I’d like to know if he could also say this: It’s my first time winning a prize.

Yes, but it's not an improvement on the original.

 

[emsr2d2]

Yes, but it's not an improvement on the original.

I would say it's worse than the original.

 

[jutfrank]

It's different from the original.

The present perfect in the original helps express that the speaker consider winning a prize an achievement.

In your alternative version, the emphasis is on the action as a new experience rather than a first achievement, so it's not very appropriate.

 

[Phaedrus]

The present perfect in the original helps express that the speaker consider winning a prize an achievement.

Would you describe the grammar of the present-perfect version as expressing an achievement, Jutfrank, if the topic were changed slightly? :-D

This is the first time I've gotten thrown in jail.
This is my first time getting thrown in jail.

 

[jutfrank]

Would you describe the grammar of the present-perfect version as expressing an achievement, Jutfrank, if the topic were changed slightly? :-D

This is the first time I've gotten thrown in jail.

I wouldn't use that example, no, because it doesn't seem to be said as if it's an achievement. However, it could be uttered within the context of the speaker talking about her wider life experience, which is generally the same thing.

 

[Phaedrus]

I wouldn't use that example, no, because it doesn't seem to be said as if it's an achievement.

Presumably, then, you would reject all these sentences:

This is the first time we've had dinner here.
This is the first time I've used a Mac.
This is the first time I've seen the movie.

I find them all correct and to be interchangeable with these:

This is our first time having dinner here.
This is my first time using a Mac.
This is my first time seeing the movie.

This is not to say, however, that I always find the two constructions equally correct and interchangeable.

This is the first time I've met her.
? This is my first time meeting her.

Perhaps the second construction may be said to suggest that the situation is repeatable. Contrast:

This is my first time meeting her here.

I'd love to find a grammar book or article that discusses that construction. It's very common and natural, but grammar works don't seem to discuss it.

 

[jutfrank]

Presumably, then, you would reject all these sentences:

This is the first time we've had dinner here.
This is the first time I've used a Mac.
This is the first time I've seen the movie.

Reject them? On what grounds? I don't think I follow what you're getting at.

I find them all correct and to be interchangeable with these:

This is our first time having dinner here.
This is my first time using a Mac.
This is my first time seeing the movie.

Well, it depends what you mean by 'interchangeable'. I'd say they're not interchangeable, as they have different uses.

This is not to say, however, that I always find the two constructions equally correct and interchangeable.

This is the first time I've met her.
? This is my first time meeting her.

Perhaps the second construction may be said to suggest that the situation is repeatable. Contrast:

This is my first time meeting her here.

I can't follow very well what you mean, I'm afraid. Could you elaborate a little as to how this last example differs? I wonder if your idea about there being an implication of repeatability comes only from the particular context in which you're imagining the utterance to be framed.

 

[Phaedrus]

Never mind. I thought you said you thought the construction with the present perfect had the implication of an achievement, so I have been giving examples which do not feature situations that would normally be called achievements.

However, it seems that you adjusted your claim such that any new life experiece, good or bad, trivial or significant, is ipso facto an "achievement."

I do believe the examples I gave are interchangeable, unless you want to argue that their uses are somehow radically different. In the last example pair, I meant what would normally be meant, absent contextual contortions. One works well; the other doesn't.

 

[jutfrank]

Never mind. I thought you said you thought the construction with the present perfect had the implication of an achievement, so I have been giving examples which do not feature situations that would normally be called achievements.

Right. I didn't mean to suggest that every possible example can usefully be seen (by a learner, at least) as an achievement.

However, it seems that you adjusted your claim such that any new life experiece, good or bad, trivial or significant, is ipso facto an "achievement."

I don't think I really claimed anything. I was just trying to explain my way of thinking. My pedagogical decision to use the word 'achievement' was based partly on the idea that almost all utterances using present perfect sentences to express some kind of life experience can be argued to be achievements of a type, depending on how wide a definition one takes. In that way, an utterance expressing an achievement is a kind of utterance expressing a life experience. However, it's only useful (to learners) to call something an achievement if the imagined speaker is thinking of an event in more specific terms. One of the problems with dealing with uncontextualised sentences such as we have in this thread is exactly that—we don't have a clear idea of how the speaker means to use the utterance.

I do believe the examples I gave are interchangeable, unless you want to argue that their uses are somehow radically different.

I really don't like the idea that any two different forms are interchangeable, but I don't want to argue this point—the difference here is not radical.

 

[diamondcutter]

In the structure--it’s one’s first time doing something, I wonder if I could think there’s an omitted preposition “in” before “doing”, which is a gerund. That will help me understand the logic of the sentence. I think the preposition “in” has the same function as it in the structure “have difficulty in doing something”.

I’d like to read your comments.

 

[GoesStation]

In the structure ćit’s one’s first time doing something", I wonder if I could think there’s an omitted preposition “in” before “doing”, which is a gerund. That will help me understand the logic of the sentence. I think the preposition “in” has the same function as it in the structure “have difficulty in doing something”.

I’d like to read your comments.

If you mean the full version would be "it's my first time in winning a prize" then no. That's meaningless.

 

[Phaedrus]

In the structure--it’s one’s first time doing something, I wonder if I could think there’s an omitted preposition “in” before “doing”, which is a gerund.

Postulating an omitted preposition is a strategic way of parsing the construction. I'd choose "of," though, rather than "in":

This is my first time [of] winning a prize.

"Of" could likewise be said to be omitted from two other related constructions, in which the -ing phrase follows "experience" or "job":

This is my first experience [of] winning a prize.
He was offered a job [of] shelving books.

In each case, it would make no sense to posit a reduced relative clause. Neither time nor experience can win prizes, and a job cannot shelve books. A similar approach to parsing the construction would be to postulate a PP headed by a null preposition of which the -ing phrase is the object. In the seeming, deplorable absence of any published grammatical wisdom on the construction, I'd say a handful of nouns select such a prepositional phrase as complement.